Comment 8 for bug 1689087

> The disadvantage is, that we have to provide such a server and the network/computational load of forwarding packets.

To put some numbers on this: we will need to precisely submit the content of the *.wrpl files to all players that are connected + maybe the savegame that is used to start the game from. All in all this is < 20MB per game. No concern for the traffic.

As for the CPU: we only need to relay, not simulate, so the CPU usage is probably neglectable. However, our V-Host only has a single CPU, so if many games are running in parallel, some cronjob runs and the website sees traffic we might feel it. I expect the extra CPU to be so little that it can be neglected.

> Of course, we can offer a relay server and one of the other approaches, too, in the hope of reducing the load on our server.

I argue that this is not worth the cost of implementation until the load on the server rises. Right now we at max have 3 games in parallel which we should easily handle. Also, as you point out none of their approaches is actually as reliable as a full proxy.

I also like that the proxy gives us a chance of saving and analyzing replays for crashes and strategies.